r/DepropagandizedNews

source

benyehuda.org/read/4648

When Alex Jones asks him about Keir Starmer being forced out, Carlson's answer is that it doesn't matter who holds the job.

JONES: "What do you make of Keir Starmer, particularly nasty creature, having to resign?"

CARLSON: "These are replaceable figures, whether it's Rishi Sunak or Keir Starmer, Macron, or Justin Trudeau. They're all kind of the same thing."

CARLSON: "They're not people who are making decisions on their own. They don't have agency. They're not actually leaders. They're employees."

Source: https://x.com/VigilantFox/status/2069816129179058463

https://thehill.com/policy/international/5931949-israel-lebanon-ceasefire-hezbollah-ben-gvir/

Scott Wiener’s January 2026 admission that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza did not place him outside the political machinery that works to protect Israel from meaningful accountability in California. It instead exposed a deeper contradiction. Here is a politician who says genocide is happening while remaining inside a legislative caucus organized around aggressively opposing actions and narratives that would put pressure on Israel to stop that genocide. This occupies a more disturbing moral position than a politician who denies genocide while serving the same institutional project.

It also functions as a more extreme version of the liberal boilerplate “I am in favor of the two‑state solution” lip service CLJC members have used for years to deflect criticism—while legally penalizing any meaningful pressure, and even narrative, that could make a dent in bringing it about.

The reluctant admission

At a January 2026 candidate forum for Nancy Pelosi’s congressional seat, Wiener declined to answer a yes‑or‑no question about whether Israel was committing genocide in Gaza, while his rivals answered yes and the audience booed him. Days later, under mounting criticism, he released a video saying that the Israeli government had tried to destroy Gaza and push Palestinians out, and that this qualified as genocide.

The timing matters because the admission looked reactive and strategic. Rather than marking a long and public break with pro‑Israel institutions, it followed a moment of campaign embarrassment and was then followed by efforts to manage the backlash from those same institutions.

Because the admission was widely perceived as appeasing the public and helping his campaign, it cast doubt on his motives.

What the caucus is for

The California Legislative Jewish Caucus presents itself as a group of lawmakers advancing the Jewish community’s top priorities, but its history shows that its mission has consistently prioritized unwavering support for Israel, despite the periodic atrocities and apartheid reported by major human rights organizations. The caucus’s first major initiative in 2012 was spearheading California’s memorandum of understanding with Israel and positioning itself as a conduit for California–Israel economic collaboration, including trade, research, educational exchange, and public–private partnerships.

That founding role matters because it places the caucus squarely inside the practical politics that BDS seeks to challenge. A caucus created in part to deepen California–Israel economic, technological, and cultural ties is not just opposing criticism of Israel in the abstract; it is helping entrench the very state‑to‑state and market relationships that boycott and sanctions campaigns are designed to disrupt. Anti‑BDS legislation was one of its early priorities and fits naturally into this project.

The caucus therefore works to foster Israel materially, politically, and symbolically: protecting its reputation, expanding its partnerships, and using California law to insulate those ties from democratic and activist pressure. That is why it makes sense to describe the caucus as a legislative node of the Israel lobby in Sacramento rather than as a neutral affinity group.

In 2026 alone, more than $1 million in pro‑Israel PAC spending has been deployed to boost Wiener’s congressional campaign, routed through AIPAC‑aligned committees such as Equality PAC, on top of tens of thousands from J Street and other pro‑Israel donors. That concentrated investment helps explain why he remains a preferred vehicle for the same political network that the caucus represents, even after publicly calling Israel’s actions in Gaza “genocide.”

The caucus’s legislative function

The President of the Council of UC Faculty Associations and California Teachers Association, criticized the caucus’ recently passed AB 715 (strongly pushed by Wiener) for stifling criticism of Israel, censoring Palestine and creating a climate of fear.

Under pressure, the caucus had to settle for “only” creating a new “Antisemitism Prevention Coordinator” to monitor K‑12 teachers, operating within the controversial IHRA definition of antisemitism that they had previously written into K‑12 policy through legislation. They had to delete the explicit prohibitions in the bill they originally wanted this coordinator to enforce. Those deleted provisions included:

1. Prohibiting historical narratives deemed anti‑Israel by the Coordinator.
2. Prohibiting accounts that, in the view of pro‑Israel organizations (like the ADL), “minimize” the nature and extent of antisemitic incidents and violence.
3. Prohibiting comparisons of Israel with Nazi Germany and Jews or Israelis with Nazis.
4. Prohibiting language or content that “directly or indirectly questions Israel’s right to exist” as discriminatory conduct toward Jewish students.
5. Prohibiting “dual loyalty” assertions that American Jews have loyalty to both Israel and the United States.

On top of anti‑BDS legislation, the caucus uses legislative power to constrain and punish the political, educational, and moral actions (and conditions) under which large numbers of Californians might come to see Israel as an apartheid or genocidal state requiring sanctions, boycott, divestment, or other pressure. In that sense, the caucus operates as a tentacle of the Israel lobby because it helps convert pro‑Israel preferences into state policy, disciplinary rules, and narrative control.

Holocaust memory, antisemitism policy, and Israel legitimation

The caucus has explicitly described its Holocaust remembrance and antisemitism programming as a means to seek legitimacy and security for the State of Israel. In a 2018 Senate session organized at the caucus’s initiative to commemorate the 70th anniversary of Israel’s founding (a date Palestinians mark as the Nakba, the 1948 Palestinian catastrophe of expulsion and dispossession), caucus members and leaders explicitly linked the Holocaust and millennia of anti‑Jewish persecution to Israel’s role as a refuge for Jews, with Scott Wiener himself arguing that the world and California bear responsibility for ensuring a viable and secure State of Israel.

This is precisely the kind of legitimating narrative that historians such as Ilan Pappé and Rashid Khalidi contest, arguing instead that, whatever refuge from antisemitism Israel provided some Jews, its creation and continued immigration patterns must be understood primarily through settler‑colonial conquest, displacement, ethnic cleansing, and the ongoing subordination of Palestinians. In fact, the Gaza genocide can only be fully understood—and thus opposed—in the context of this settler‑colonial history.

In the caucus’s own political framework, Holocaust and antisemitism programs, as well as restrictions on K‑12 teachers, are explicitly mobilized to suppress the settler‑colonial narrative and to cast anti‑Zionist, anti‑apartheid, and anti‑genocide politics as suspect or outright antisemitic. Once that function is recognized, caucus‑backed antisemitism legislation looks less like a neutral civil‑rights project and more like part of an ideological infrastructure for legitimizing Israel despite atrocities while stigmatizing movements that challenge it.

Remaining in the caucus is the issue

Wiener stepped down as co‑chair of the caucus after backlash over his genocide statement, but he remained a member. The caucus’s membership page continued to list him, which means he stayed inside the institution, continued to identify with it, and continued to participate in its project. Remaining inside the caucus is not a neutral state of being; it is an ongoing choice to participate in its strategy discussions, legislative priorities, and public messaging.

If the caucus functions as part of the organized pro‑Israel infrastructure in California politics, then staying in it after calling Gaza a genocide is not a minor technicality. It is evidence that the statement did not become a rupture with the very lobby structure most associated with protecting Israel from accountability in the state legislature.

Why acknowledgement by Wiener can worsen complicity

The moral distinction turns on knowledge. Work on genocide responsibility and complicity emphasizes that awareness of atrocity increases the duty not only to avoid participation in it, but also to avoid aiding structures that help it continue. Knowledge plus obstruction is ethically worse than ignorance plus obstruction because the actor understands the stakes and still chooses to impede remedies.

Applied here, the argument is straightforward. Public education, protected speech, protest, divestment campaigns, and other forms of organized pressure are among the few nonviolent avenues available for helping stop genocide. If Wiener sincerely believes Israel is committing genocide, then remaining inside a caucus that works to discipline those avenues means knowingly helping preserve barriers against stopping what he has already named as genocide.

A politician who denies genocide while advancing the same legislation is still doing something gravely harmful. But the internal moral structure is different: the denier can tell himself a story that he is fighting antisemitism or protecting campus safety, however wrong that story is. The acknowledger cannot claim that confusion. He has named the crime and remained inside the apparatus that blunts the response.

What moral consistency would have required for Wiener

Even someone who does not believe that a state’s right to continued statehood is contingent upon avoiding egregious violations of international norms could have, in the case of Israel, taken a far more morally coherent position in the face of genocide. States are sanctioned all the time to put pressure on them without anyone claiming that sanctions necessarily amount to a denial of those states’ future existence. Wiener certainly does not oppose sanctions on states like Iran or Russia.

Moral consistency would have required steps such as leaving the caucus altogether, apologizing for previous caucus actions, and, if not publicly supporting, at least not actively opposing nonviolent measures—boycott, divestment, sanctions, arms embargoes.